| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2005 10:22:51 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I'm using XP with a cable modem at home without issue. Maybe XP doesn't have a default driver for the modem but then your cable company should be providing a CD with the proper driver for the modem they are using.
If jpeg is working for you then go for it. |
It is not the modem, it is something on the provider side that they refuse to fix for some reason - too expensive to switch their servers or some such nonsense. When cable modems became available here in this area most everyone jumped on them since the copper connections here are really, really slow. A 56k modem was lucky to connect at 22/23k. And DSL is not an option in this area either. I think that there are not enough people (I live in a very rural area) to make a difference to the company. We had to fight like hell just to get cable (again, not enough people to be cost effective we were told)let alone cable modem service. |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 10:25:06 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I'm confused...is the "trick" described in this thread simply to shoot for the highlights?
Essentially, expose so that the highlights are as bright as possible without being blown out, right?
This normally means that on a bright day with too much range your photos should be underexposed (to avoid blowing out the highlights) and in a controlled setting with a 4 stop range your photo should be slightly overexposed (again, to the edge of highlight range - but not blown).
Right?
[/url] |
Yep, that's correct. The essential idea is to use all the dynamic range that the sensor has. Keep in mind that in some cases it is necessary to blow small highlights to get adequate exposure of your subject, and so we all must make intelligent choices on when to consciously blow out something. Bracketing is sometimes a solution, but often not (non-static subjects).
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 10:54:49 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yep, that's correct. The essential idea is to use all the dynamic range that the sensor has. Keep in mind that in some cases it is necessary to blow small highlights to get adequate exposure of your subject, and so we all must make intelligent choices on when to consciously blow out something. Bracketing is sometimes a solution, but often not (non-static subjects). |
Absolutely.
To my mind, blown highlights tend to stand out more than lost details in shadow areas. Shadows naturally fade to black so losing a bit of shadow detail to absolute black doesn't jarr. Highlights (particularly on reflective surfaces) do slide all the way to white but these are often tiny areas rather than large patches of white, which can jarr more.
Depending on what one is shooting, of course, but I do personally find that more images than not will suffer more from blown highlights than lost shadows.
As I said, it does depend on what you are shooting.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:07:02 PM · #79 |
You're right, Kavey...and here's why (I think)...In real life, we often look at shadows (look under your desk, for example) that have very little detail to them...but we rarely see highlights that are so white they have very little detail. Why? Because we never stare at bright lights, that's why. We often survey a scene with black patches but if it has white patches we tend to avoid those areas with our eyes because they're too bright.
I dunno...a theory...
[/url] |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:23:09 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Edit: Should have been 10 - the fingers I am using are too fat. |
To obtain a special typing wand, please mash the keyboard with your palm now. |
DOH! God, I love Homer!
Now, where is my Tab?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:31:07 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
You're right, Kavey...and here's why (I think)...In real life, we often look at shadows (look under your desk, for example) that have very little detail to them...but we rarely see highlights that are so white they have very little detail. Why? Because we never stare at bright lights, that's why. We often survey a scene with black patches but if it has white patches we tend to avoid those areas with our eyes because they're too bright.
I dunno...a theory... |
Sounds very believable to me - not a bad theory.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:34:26 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Edit: Should have been 10 - the fingers I am using are too fat. |
To obtain a special typing wand, please mash the keyboard with your palm now. |
DOH! God, I love Homer!
Now, where is my Tab? |
Computer: "...press any key."
Homer: "where's the any key?"
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:41:53 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Wooooh what a read, my head hurts. Bits, bytes, electrons and such all sounds mighty good, but most went sailing over my head.
However I ALWAYS shoot -1/2 to -1/3 underexposed (left side bias) and I was getting very pissed off with the noise in my images when converted from RAW. Now I have a possible answer which I can go away and experiment with.
If this works then you probably saved me the cost of a new camera body cos boy was I getting pissed and was convinced the cam had something wrong with it or that Rawshooter was screwing stuff.
I'll report back when I've experimented a little. |
OK did a little experiment here in the hotel room. I took one photo at -1/3 and then a secon at +1/3 which was really a more central rather than right hand bias because the +2/3 blew the highlights.
So you can see the central section does look as though its slightly cleaner - interesting. I'm going to have to have a serious look at this.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:53:01 PM · #84 |
This is something I have been doing since reading a book called "Understanding Exposure Revised Edition" by Bryan Peterson.
Basically what does alot is tilt his camera up a little above the subject to the sky.
He then, buttons half-way, adjusts the aperture to center using the sky's brightness, then recompose the shot. The results are very good.
Usually it results in you being +1 or +2 when recomposed on the subject.
It has helped lots of my photos. |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:58:29 PM · #85 |
What he's doing is finding something in the same light as his subject that is medium toned (blue sky) to meter off of. You can do this in any scene and the medium toned subject can be anything. It just has to be in the same light as your subject.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 04:06:22 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by jseyerle:
This is something I have been doing since reading a book called "Understanding Exposure Revised Edition" by Bryan Peterson.
Basically what does alot is tilt his camera up a little above the subject to the sky.
He then, buttons half-way, adjusts the aperture to center using the sky's brightness, then recompose the shot. The results are very good.
Usually it results in you being +1 or +2 when recomposed on the subject.
It has helped lots of my photos. |
Wouldn't metering off the sky give you a underexposed rather than overexposed subject? I meter off the sky mainly to not blow the sky highlights, or to produce a sillouette in the sun, but the subjects on the ground would be underexposed.
Am I missing something in that? |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 04:29:59 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Wouldn't metering off the sky give you a underexposed rather than overexposed subject? I meter off the sky mainly to not blow the sky highlights, or to produce a sillouette in the sun, but the subjects on the ground would be underexposed.
Am I missing something in that? |
No, you are right. And from what I understand, Colette is correct about Peterson's method.
Message edited by author 2005-07-12 16:30:24.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 04:33:28 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I'm confused...is the "trick" described in this thread simply to shoot for the highlights? |
Not exactly no.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Essentially, expose so that the highlights are as bright as possible without being blown out, right? |
In general, yes.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
This normally means that on a bright day with too much range your photos should be underexposed (to avoid blowing out the highlights) |
If you want to avoid blowing whatever highlights are present, then yes. If the dynamic range in the scene exceeds your cameras capture capabilities, then you'll have to decide what's more important: avoiding blown highlights or maximizing main subject data quality. You may find that you blow unimportant highlights to get a better (overexposed - but not clipped) main subject. Of course, if your subject is not static, you'll have to make these decisions without thinking about them, which is probably why it tends to be easier to let the camera make all the exposure decisions in some cases. Static subjects are a little easier since you can bracket your shots and possibly combine them later using different techniques (or just choose one that seems best). However, none of these techniques is a good substitute for a polarizer and/or nd filter.
[quote=thatcloudthere] and in a controlled setting with a 4 stop range your photo should be slightly overexposed (again, to the edge of highlight range - but not blown).[quote]
Yes, with a final reminder this only applies when shooting raw. You dial back the exposure in the raw convert to get a correct exposure. I only mention it because I seem to recall some people (not in this thread) believing they could do this in jpeg mode.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 05:35:38 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by deapee:
...but like I said, promoting it as a bandaid to fix white balance issues or exposure problems is not what RAW was intended for. Learn how to shoot first. |
You appear to be missing the point. Learn how to read first. |
lol. I'm not missing the point...and believe it or not, I do actually know how to read. I see a bunch of people getting anxious to shoot RAW just because they can fine tune their white balance or adjust exposure...those are not valid reasons to always shoot raw. Mind actually stating a defense or refuting a point I made instead of telling me to learn how to read next time?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 06:45:37 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by deapee:
...I see a bunch of people getting anxious to shoot RAW just because they can fine tune their white balance or adjust exposure...those are not valid reasons to always shoot raw. Mind actually stating a defense or refuting a point I made instead of telling me to learn how to read next time? |
David,
The title of the thread is "Tips for those of you who shoot in RAW mode." I didn't think we were debating the merits of shooting RAW, but let me respond to your proposition that exposure and WB adjustment are not valid reasons to shoot RAW. I won't drag this out with a technical treatise on why those are two incredibly good reasons to shoot RAW, but I will relate my own experience.
In September of last year I was shooting 100% JPEG. I had read quite a bit on RAW, and as part of the SC had needed to get used to "developing" RAW proof files. I decided to take one casual weekend shoot and do it in RAW to see what "developed." I never went back. There's that much difference, IMO. I will never limit myself to preapplied WB, Gamma & color space info, and in-camera reduction to 8-bit resolution again. I don't find RAW workflow to be any more laborious than a JPEG workflow. In fact it's much more flexible: with the batch capability of ACR, I can set my processing parameters for a series of shots, and let it convert them on the fly. The results require less post-processing, since I've applied human intelligence on the front end in choosing my processing options.
Message edited by author 2005-07-12 18:57:01.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 07:06:22 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
David,
The title of the thread is "Tips for those of you who shoot in RAW mode." I didn't think we were debating the merits of shooting RAW, but let me respond to your proposition that exposure and WB adjustment are not valid reasons to shoot RAW. I won't drag this out with a technical treatise on why those are two incredibly good reasons to shoot RAW, but I will relate my own experience.
In September of last year I was shooting 100% JPEG. I had read quite a bit on RAW, and as part of the SC had needed to get used to "developing" RAW proof files. I decided to take one casual weekend shoot and do it in RAW to see what "developed." I never went back. There's that much difference, IMO. I will never limit myself to preapplied WB, Gamma & color space info, and in-camera reduction to 8-bit resolution again. I don't find RAW workflow to be any more laborious than a JPEG workflow. In fact it's much more flexible: with the batch capability of ACR, I can set my processing parameters for a series of shots, and let it convert them on the fly. The results require less post-processing, since I've applied human intelligence on the front end in choosing my processing options. |
Cool, I'm glad RAW works for you. Personally, I don't see the point myself. I agree with Ken Rockwell on the subject.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 08:18:06 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Cool, I'm glad RAW works for you. Personally, I don't see the point myself. I agree with Ken Rockwell on the subject. |
IMO, Ken has way oversimplified the matter, and slanted his column to the point where one can hardly consider it an objective overview. He glosses over the benefits and dismisses the flexibility of RAW as "not getting it right in-camera." We're all entitled to our opinions, though, and he's as opinionated as they come. Too bad he doesn't back it up with objective data and analysis. That regularly hurts the credibility of his writing.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/22/2025 01:52:30 PM EDT.
